Democrat Phoenix Mayor Gordon having it both ways on immigration

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon is asking the federal government for more money for border security (just a couple of weeks after he asked the federal government for bailout money). This is the same Phil Gordon who turned Phoenix into a sanctuary state a few years ago, giving Arizona the highest rate of illegal immigration in the country. Gordon would be better off fully repealing Phoenix’s sanctuary city ordinance, which has ony been partially modified under the direction of a team of liberal prosecutors since he implemented it. Phoenix is still considered a sanctuary city. You can’t have a sanctuary city policy and expect the rest of the taxpayers across the country to pay for that policy.


Comments

  1. Phoenix is a city not a state.
    Can you give me the reference for this ordinance that was passed? I can’t seem to find it and have a feeling it doesn’t exist.
    While I’m not a fan of Gordon’s, did you consider that regardless of how tough your laws are, an un-secure border will thwart any efforts to stop illegal immigration?
    Have Arpaio’s tactics really stopped the flow of illegal immigrants?

  2. SA, you’re drinking the Joe Arpaio KoolAid here. Phoenix has been more proactive on immigration than any city in the country. If there is a large or even mid-size city that has been more aggresive on the issue, please name it.

    The 16,000 illegals Joe brags about deporting? Two-thirds of them have been arrested by Phoenix police. Anyone stopped for any crime — felony or misdemeanor — has their immigration status reviewed and if they’re here illegally, they’re gone.

    The difference between Gordon and Arpaio is that Joe spends hundreds of deputy manhours trolling for 15 or 20 landscapers or dishwashers using illegal traffic stops; Gordon and Phoenix PD target the smugglers and the heads of the syndicates who are trafficking in drugs, guns and kidnappings. As a taxpayer, I’ll take the Phoenix approach.

  3. j. Chris King says

    Roger,
    Pat is talking about Special Order 40. It does exist, it has been on the books forever. Actually, tough laws, vigorously enforced could work. if you take away the incentive for coming to the US, you wouldn’t need a secure border. Yes, Arpaio’s tactics have affected the flow of illegal immigrants. While other law officials mainly concentrate on more serious criminal behavior, Arpaio has chosen to advertise that he will enforce “all” the laws on the books. That fact alone has sent many illegals packing. The argument that he does this at the expense of ignoring more serious crime is easily refuted despite what you may have read or heard.
    Now, Bill, (ahem)
    Let’s say we try to keep this civil…..agree? I will not attempt to challenge your opinion of Arpaio, but I will address the integrity of your data offered here.
    Now, I could fall for your challenge and throw out a couple of cities like Farmer’s Branch and Hazelton, but that isn’t really how honest debates work. If you contend that Phoenix is proactive on illegal immigration, then YOU NEED to prove it. So I’ll ask you this, what has Gordon, or even Harris done on their own volition that would make you think that?
    The 16,000 deportations… two thirds arrested by Phoenix, PD? Answer me this Bill, how many of those arrested would have been deported if it weren’t for Arpaio? In other words, how many did Phoenix PD order deportations on? Furthermore, Phoenix PD DOES NOT REVIEW IMMIGRATION STATUS on every person stopped for any crime as you claim.
    Arpaio’s crime sweeps are:
    1) Not looking for dishwashers and landscapers – they have picked up scores of misdemeanor and felony warrants using this very tried and true method of law enforcement. (Incidentally, Warren Jeffs was caught in a routine tailight stop by a Utah patrolman.)
    2) And contrary to what is reported, Arpaio uses mainly his volunteer posses deputies who, as you know, cost the taxpayer …..nada.
    Critics, such as yourself, like to allege that Arpaio is ignoring all the serious criminals while conducting sweeps – nothing could be further from the truth. The simple facts don’t support that assumption.
    J. Chris King

Leave a Reply